Enquête sur les initiatives canadiennes et internationales en matière de la gestion des données
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent rapport vise à donner une vue d’ensemble des types d’activités de gestion des données qui sont entreprises au Canada et à l’étranger. Nous présentons les diverses options offertes aux bibliothèques et nous préparons le terrain pour une enquête plus approfondie par le groupe de travail sur les rôles possibles des bibliothèques.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this metaresearch. It is in the settled core of the field.
Research library association survey of Canadian and international research data management initiatives and the roles open to libraries; LIS and research data infrastructure, with the Canadian landscape as a substantive object.
This report maps Canadian and international research data management initiatives and library roles, making research infrastructure its object.
Landscape report of Canadian and international research data management initiatives and library roles; research infrastructure/LIS with Canada as substantive object.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".